The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused "Bonnie and Clyde" because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of "Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue" or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."

Sunday, March 16, 2014

So NPR publishes Alice Fordham who covered the Iraq War for Rupert Murdoch and the comments are all about Bush? How typical and self-righteous as well as uninformed.I consider Bush a War Criminal.What's
going on right now isn't about him. I'm not surprised Fordham plays
the terrorist card, she learned it well under Murdoch.But, fellow
Americans, if you could take a moment to stop babbling about Bush, go
over to Human Rights Watch and read their reports on Anbar.Nouri
al-Maliki is using collective punishment -- a War Crime. The Common
Ills has pointed this out since the assault on Anbar began at the end of
December.Nouri's forces are killing innocents including children and they're bombing hospitals. You may think you look really informed when you grumble about Bush in this story. Maybe to an echo chamber you do.But I'm a Green and you just look like people who want to talk but don't want to take the time required to learn the facts.This isn't 2004. There's
a reason Senator Robert Menendez didn't want to arm Nouri and it took
weeks of strong-arming him by the current White House for Nouri to get
the Hellfire missiles he's now using on the people of Anbar.It is true that War Criminal Bush appointed Nouri in 2006.It's also true he lost the 2010 elections.For 8 months he refused to step down and with the support of the US and Iran, he didn't have to.Barack
Obama is the one who ordered US officials to broker The Erbil Agreement
which gives -- as The Common Ills points out repeatedly -- Nouri a
second term by going around the Iraqi Constitution, concepts of
democracy and the will of the Iraqi people.That contract was signed
because there was no government for 8 months following the election.
The contract dictated a power-sharing government. But after Nouri
signed it, he refused to honor it and the White House that had promised
the Kurds a power-sharing agreement, President Barack Obama who had
personally called Ayad Allawi to go back into Parliament on its first
meeting in months (November 2010)? They suddenly ignored their
promises.NPR didn't report it accurately in real time. It's no surprise they're offering nonsense now.

-- Ann, commenting on the awful Alice Fordham 'report' NPR aired -- where's the link to NPR's story? They didn't allow Ann's comment to go up so we will be damned if we're going to give them a link.

Hanaa Edwar, who heads the Al-Amal Association which fights for the
socio-economic improvement of Iraqis, points out that among the poor –
which, since the invasion, has spiraled, children as young as ten are
already marrying and further, that most of the religious “illiterate
people hear it’s based on Ja’fari (law) and think it must be good.”Yanar Mohammed, President of the Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq, is convinced
that “Iraqi people will not agree to the legalization of pedophilia …
the objections come from all sides, and the number of women who raise
their voices is high … It is an abuse of children’s rights and their
bodily integrity.”

Edwar and Mohammed are lobbying in and out of the parliament, but “pressure from outside Iraq is essential.”

Ava and C.I. wrote this to address an e-mail. I wasn't sure what they were going to do but I did ask them to include the e-mail in their TV piece. This is a strong response that I'm sure will please many.

This was the piece I wanted Ava and C.I. to write last week but they refused. (See last week's "A note to our readers.") I was afraid it wouldn't be timely if they waited a Sunday. I was wrong. Never underestimate The New York Times' ability to miss the point -- especially when it comes to women.

We did this quickly. Ava and C.I. had another piece they wanted done and we went with this. The last thing we wrote. As a result, we're too tired for anything else, we're ignoring a good story. I've told C.I. she can address it at her site if she thinks it won't still be timely by next Sunday.

Ava and C.I.'s "hands clean" piece is long. And was hell to write, they'll tell you. That's why they refused to do it last week when they were exhausted. When they went off to write it this week, they suggested I do a Jim's World. Which I did. And took the hint.

As we were winding down, we saw this and knew we had to write something. We still had the Gap piece, the editorial and the piece Ava and C.I. were advocating for (it's on The Drone War). But we had to make time for this.

"So let me get this straight," writes Tammi in an e-mail in response to our "TV: A week of putrid and puerile" last week, "a real feminist hosts the show and writes this amazing feminist sketch endorsing Planned Parenthood. You should be praising her. You should [***]damn be on your knees, kneeling before her. A honest to God feminist sketch makes it onto network TV. But all you can do is attack it. You're like all the other haters who refuse to praise Lena for her talent but attack her for her looks. It really says something about a person when they make their point by attacking someone's looks. And you call yourselves the voice of feminism? You should be ashamed."

First off, we present a feminist viewpoint in a feminist voice. We have noted many times that feminism is not one monolithic voice but a series of voices.

While Lena Dunham did present herself as the voice of a generation (see the first episode of her awful TV series) and HBO marketed that to the press which ran with it, we have repeatedly stated we are "a feminist voice" and not "the voice of feminism."

Second, Lena's an exhibitionist.

And she appears to think that she can be one and just receive praise for it by insisting it's "fat shaming" to note her weight. You do nudity on camera repeatedly and you're an actor or actress, your body's going to get commented on whether you're Richard Gere or Lena Dunham.

We've noted here before that TV is a visual medium and we will comment on visuals.

We do understand Lena Dunham says it is wrong to do so.

She says that.

She doesn't practice it, but she says it.

So what it really looks like is she just says it to attack people that don't like her.

The skit you praise, Tammi, the whole point is that the thick-accented stranger doesn't like the body of the man. Did you miss all those insults?

So overweight Lena says it's fat shaming to note her gross obesity but does a skit where a woman rejects a man because he's 'puny'?

In the sketch, Bruce is described as a "little skinny guy" and laughed at for having "little arms."

So fatty wants to make fun of skinny but wants to say no one should talk about how grossly obese she is?

In the skit, the woman whom Bruce has brought to America tells him, "I don't like your body. I don't like your face "

And she does so to the glee of the other women present.

And Lena wants to whine that she's being fat shamed?

No, it doesn't work that way.

The phrase we all learned as children was, "Don't dish it out if you can't take it."

Lena Dunham has problems with people of color.

We noted that and questioned why she was attacking Scandal in a parody instead of a show that didn't feature women of color? How about the mighty NCIS instead?

But let's point out that Lena Grand Dragon Dunham's big 'feminist' moment involved a dumb woman of color and the 'actress' Lena spoke slowly to her implying she was more than just dumb.

The skit had the woman of color excitedly exclaiming, "He fights the equal pay of men and women!"

The 'feminist' sketch had the woman of color too dumb to grasp what that meant.

The woman of color needed White Jewish Lena to explain it to her.

At another point, a condescending Lena asks, "Marisol, do you know what Planned Parenthood is?"

No, she doesn't.

So she's lucky to have White Lena to explain to her, "It's a place where women can go for low cost medial advice and care."

It can't even use the terms "abortion" or "reproductive rights." It takes the very specific mission of Planned Parenthood and waters it down as though its work is too 'outrageous' to be supported if explained truthfully.

That's feminism?

And how about the skit offering that he's the way he is now because when he was 18 his heart was broken?

That's why he turned into a men's rights activist.

Seriously?

That's how we reason in a 'feminist' skit?

Because most people -- men and women -- have had their hearts broken as teenagers.

And that's another reason the skit failed.

Do we want to talk about how the skit re-enforced sexist gender roles?

Or how the man was rejected for his looks?

It was a skit where a group of White women gang up on one "little skinny guy," ridicule him -- including for his body -- and 'save' the sole woman of color whom the skit presents as both dumb and too dumb to save herself.

We're struggling, Tammi, to see how anyone could describe that skit as feminism?

As for bowing down to Lena?

That's not feminism either.

Feminism isn't a fan club for a woman.

Feminism is about empowering women -- plural.

Feminism is about all women becoming what they can be.

Tammi, you've fallen for a queen bee and relegated yourself to drone status.

It's your life and you can do what you want with it but don't try to pass it off as feminism unless you're willing to be called on it.

On the front page of Thursday's New York Times, Alan Blinder and Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "How a Military Sexual Assault Case Foundered" began and continued on and on. The story should have outraged. The two authors ensured it didn't by failing to get to the point.

It takes them 48 paragraphs to introduce the element where the case foundered. ("Foundered"? They mean to sink or go under.)

Paragraph 48:To Mr. Scheff, the lead defense lawyer, this was one more example of improper Pentagon involvement. Soon, the judge seemed to warm to the same conclusion. In a hearing last week, he expressed concerns about a letter sent in December by Capt. Cassie L. Fowler, the chief witness's special victim counsel, to General Anderson, calling it "inappropriate."[. . .]In her letter to General Anderson, Captain Fowler, a recent Notre Dame Law School graduate, made what legal experts have said was an unsurprising -- but overtly political -- argument for why General Anderson should reject the plea offer.In a reference to the sort of legislation advocated by Ms. [Senator Kirsten] Gillibrand, she wrote, "Allowing the accused to characterize this relationship as a consensual affair would only strengthen the arguments of those individuals that believe the prosecution of sexual assault should be taken away from the Army."

That's paragraphs 48, 50 and 51 above.

The article is 61 paragraphs long. Here's the 60th paragraph:Minutes later, Colonel Pohl surprised many in the court with his decision: The Fowler letter "raised the appearance of unlawful command influence" and had improperly swayed General Anderson. He told the defense team that it could submit a new plea offer to a different commander.

Like Hedda and Louella in days long past, Blinder and Oppel went on and on about details that didn't matter -- newly discovered cell phones, "beauty queen" (we still don't grasp why that was tossed at the alleged rape victim -- especially since the two men who used the term never bothered to inform readers what pageant the alleged victim had competed in) -- and completely ignored reality.

This is the War Against Women, the real war, and don't expect The New York Times or the Democratic Party to ever tell you about it.

We're taking no position on the issues of the case above. The basics are a relationship took place and that the female states it included rape while the male insists all sex was consensual.

And what was the selling point here to Congress?Designated SVC personnel will collaborate with local DoD Sexual Assault Response
Coordinators (SARC), Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Victim
Advocates (VA), Family Advocacy Program Managers (FAPM), and Domestic Abuse
Victim Advocates (DAVA) during all stages of the military justice process to ensure an
integrated capability, to the greatest extent possible.

So important was the claim, it was included in letters to the House and Senate when DoD was arguing its needs for the 2013 Fiscal Year budget.

"During all stages."

So now it's not during all stages and its not collaborating with everyone.

That's the story Blinder and Oppel had but missed.

This band-aid was supposed to help the victims of assault and rape.

A military court just decided a SVC doing her job "raised the appearance of unlawful command influence."

This is not just new, as an expert notes to the paper. It is also, as we apparently the first to note, completely against what DoD agreed to with Congress.

The Pentagon has had years to address this issue.

It doesn't address the issue, it hides it.

In a few decades, without any help from the fumbling Secretaries of Defense and the Pentagon, the issue will right itself.

That's because of progress within the civilian population on issues such as equality.

It will be seen as stupid to attack, in any way, someone you're serving with.

Rape's not about sex. It's an attack, it's violence.

The military has refused to address it.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?

She's tried to address it.

She rightly proposed that evaluating the crimes of assault and rape be taken out of the military's hands.

It needs to happen.

At The Common Ills, the case of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach was covered extensively. She was missing in December 2007 when she became news. She was pregnant when she went missing. More importantly, she was forced to interact with Corporal Cesar Armando. She had stated he raped her and gone to command. Command protected Lauren, it did nothing to protect Maria.

They did not remove her from the situation and she was forced to work with the man who she said raped her.

Not only that, when she disappeared, Lauren was able to escape and flee to Mexico because it never occurred to military command to question Lauren, not even after Maria Lauterbach's corpse was found by the police -- not military police, of course -- buried in his backyard.

If that case had been taken out of military hands, things might be very different and Maria might have lived.

There are many other cases where military command worked for the attacker and not the victim.

Gillibrand came up with a bill that would address the issue and stop the cover ups, a bill that would force accountability on the military.

The result?

Democrats and Republicans in the Senate worked overtime to defeat Gillibrand's bill.

Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand blamed the White House's lack of support for the failure of
her sexual-assault bill in the Senate on Thursday, and she vowed to keep
fighting to reform the military justice system."I made my
greatest case, I advocated for this position, this reform, and the
president has been very clear: He wants to end sexual assault in the
military, he wants it to be further studied, and he wants to see
progress and whether it's been accomplished in the next year," the New
York Democrat said at a press conference after her bill went down.When asked if
she would have succeeded if President Obama had pushed for her bill and
whether she was disappointed by the White House's lack of support, she
quickly answered, "Yes, yes."

The Democratic Party doesn't like women.

That'll change in a few decades as certain people die off.

But they don't like women.

The Democratic Leadership Council has morphed into other things today.

But in the 80s and 90s and the first half of the '00s, it was about electing Democrats to office.

How do you do that?

They argued that Democratic issues were unpopular. They argued that more conservative measures needed to be taken.

Hillary Clinton was not DLC. She was the 'wife of' and that mattered not at all to the DLC.

The DLC didn't value women -- especially not in the 80s and early 90s.

But they knew they needed them.

And they knew the abortion issue could help them get women's votes.

But how to be pro-choice and conservative?

Speak of abortion as an option that needs to be legal but speak of the option with regret.

A lot of people wrongly claim that the DLC were conservatives who whored the party for their beliefs.

If only.

If only they had beliefs. That would have meant you could debate them.

They weren't conservatives, they were lazy asses.

They wanted corporate money and wanted to get it in the easiest manner possible.

1992's Democratic Party primary can be seen as the ascendancy of the DLC. Not only did Bill win the nomination (he was their candidate -- he was also the candidate of many other groups) but Jerry Brown didn't. Brown was running a different form of campaign. The media found it threatening so they tended to ridicule Brown and let him be defined by his opponents.

But the campaign Brown was running was based on Democratic issues -- labor, Social Security, safety net, etc. -- and on democracy. He was appealing to a larger base, he was attempting to motivate (and succeeding somewhat) people who didn't vote or who had stopped voting to come back to the process.

Bill was competing for the tiny swing voters.

The DLC was as well. (Again, Bill was a member of the DLC.)

They believed that you won the election just by dividing the groups and grabbing the swing voters. They were not interested in voter registration drives or increasing turnout.

A small segment of voters go back and forth between the two major political parties -- Democrats and Republicans -- and these people are not liberal to put it mildly.

So to appeal to these voters, you have to be conservative -- either outright or in cold.

And this is how the Democratic Party moved further and further to the right.

Barack was on the DLC's last recruits.

They've since gone (actually they created a new name for themselves The New Democrats).

But in 2004, they were still around.

The early '00s saw many Democratic losses.

One of the few things the Democratic Party had in Congress that they were proud of?

Hillary Clinton.

Hillary could and did raise funds. She was effective. People liked her. They donated big to any event you could get Hillary to.

At the end of 2003, sewer rats Amy Goodman and John Nichols declared on Democracy Now! that Hillary would be the candidate for the Democrats in 2004, that there was this secret plan to install her.

They may have proved that porn rots the brain, but that's all the two 'informed' 'journalists' proved.

In 2004, the Democratic National Convention was to be held in Boston and early on the speakers were announced.

Not one woman politician in prime time. Not one.

And Hillary wasn't even a speaker.

The former First Lady, now US Senator whose fundraising gigs kept the party afloat wasn't allowed to speak.

It took a massive protest to the DNC -- complaints, threats of pulling donations, etc. -- for the DNC to quickly schedule Hillary.

Even so, she was the only female politician to speak in prime time.

The Democratic Party does not like women.

In 2008, you saw a huge, huge difference in who got to speak in prime time. Part of that was due to Hillary's historic run for the nomination but part of it was fear that Barack Obama would lose the women's vote -- PUMA had them very scared.

It's worth noting that while Democrats had to fight to get Hillary on the 2004 speakers DNC speakers list, Barack Nobody -- not even a US senator at this point -- gave the key note address for the convention. It's also worth noting that we are not endorsing Hillary for a 2016 run.

And, yes, we're back to Barack.

He could have championed Gillibrand's needed measure which would have done so much to help those assaulted and raped while serving.

He elected not to.

But he did make time for "My Brother's Keeper" -- his new effort to help African-American males and Latinos.

I
don’t mean to sound curt but I am quite over the narrative, which
places black boys at the central of what ails – as well as what will fix
– the community. Black men are no more or less hindered by “tough odds”
than black women. Likewise, black men are no more or less dinged and
obstructed by racism. And yet, when it’s time to put forth meaningful
efforts meant at addressing the downtrodden and disadvantaged in our
community, for black women and girls (in particular, funding for black
women and girls) are often left out of the equation.

According to the African American Policy Forum, black girls are suspended at a higher rate
than all other girls and white and Latino boys. Sixty-seven percent of
black girls reported feelings of sadness or hopelessness for more than
two weeks straight compared to 31 percent of white girls and 40 percent
of Latinas. Single black women have the lowest net wealth of any group,
with research showing a median wealth of $100.
Single black men by contrast have an average net wealth of $7,900 and
single white women have an average net wealth of $41,500. Fifty-five
percent of black women (and black men) have never been married, compared
to 34 percent for white women.This situation is dire at every
level. But perhaps the most troubling thing of all: The report indicates
that while over 100 million philanthropic dollars have been spent in
the last decade creating mentoring and educational initiatives for black
and brown boys, less than a million dollars has been given to the study
of black and brown girls!

The thinking -- and both Cooper and especially Ball note the thinking -- is that this segment must be helped and must be helped now. That's an insulting thought and we'll get to why that is in a minute. But let's accept that thought for just a second.

If that's true or even just believed, then the clear answer is to get jobs for these two groups of men. Those under 18 need to be placed in vocational education immediately. College? We have nothing against it but if you're talking about drop out rates and other issues -- that the White House is talking about -- and you're saying time is limited -- you rush the underage into vocational education (with the government picking up the tab). Those who are young adults? You either get them in vocational education or you create a job for them.

This is a band-aid, please note.

Because you don't help boys this way. You may help a group, a select group over a certain limited period of time, but you don't help boys and you don't help girls by doing this.

It's funny that what little blowback Barack's gotten on this has failed to note the real realities.

Barack's saying these two groups of young males must be helped because they're ticking time bombs.

Possibly, people miss that charge because they're not tying it in with the way this administration focuses on boys and men and ignores girls and women.

To grasp "My Brother's Keeper," you need to know about the February 11th House Armed Services Committee hearing. Specifically, you need to know what the State Department's Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs said. That's Anne Patterson who's so damn proud of herself (queen bees usually are). As reported at The Common Ills:

And women should especially pay attention because women's rights don't
mean a damn thing to the US government. Doubt it? Note this exchange,
note it real good.

US House Rep Thornberry: Ambassador, I want to get back to this
subject of credibility that the Chairman raised earlier. And part of
what really bothers me is Ms. Slotkin's answer to the Chairman's first
question, she said essentially, 'Well there was a lot of violence in
Anbar before the surge, so there's really no lesson to be -- to be
learned there because our troops wouldn't have made any difference any
way.' But what -- Well, first, of course, there was a tremendous amount
of sacrifice for our folks as well as Iraqis required to change the
situation in Anbar. Secondly, the hope was that some sort of a
continued engagement and advisory would increase their capability and
keep them focused on the real enemy, the terrorists, not devolve into
sectarian struggles. And so I want to get -- And the fact that we're
not there? I kind of wonder does that not effect the way other
countries see us? As whether we're a reliable partner or not? [. . .]Anne Patterson: Uh, I -- I do think -- Let me say, I do think we're a
reliable partner and I think our presence is-is very extensive. Let me
take the example of Iraq and what we've done recently. Uh, we have
made an extraordinary effort with the help of this Committee and other,
uh, Committees in the Congress to give them the weaponry and the,
frankly, the intelligence support that they need to meet this, uh,
this-this renewed threat, uh, from ISIL. And it was critically
important that we supply Hellfire Missiles, uh, because they had
attempted to go after these camps in the dessert with thin-skinned
helicopters and, uh, by ground and had been unable to do so. So our
arming them came at a critical point to enable them to go after the
terrorists. We also have, uh, tried to step up training. We're
planning to step up training. We have an enormous foreign military
sales and foreign military financing program with Iraq. So I think it's
very difficult to say that we've abandoned the Iraqis because I think
we're very, uh, intensely engaged there. And as to your broader
question, sir, yes, I think we're going to need to be involved in these
countries -- whether it's Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq or Egypt for
decades to come -- and not just in the military sense. The key element
in all these countries is going to be job creation for the enormous
number of young men that are coming into the labor force and basically
have no prospects or are in a built-in element of instability.

Job creation for men.

Clearly, the Middle East needs more female suicide bombers. They
already exist. But they clearly need to increase their numbers or
they're not getting the focus of the US government.

Anne Patterson, a woman in the Anne Slaughter sense of the word --
meaning she remembers her gender when she has a book to sell or is in
trouble -- is happy to pimp the need for jobs for men. Only for men.
If that was the policy in the United States, Anne Patterson wouldn't
have a job, let alone "my forty year career."

How does this administration plan to combat terrorism?

"Job creation for the enormous number of young men that are coming into the labor force and basically have no prospects or are in a built-in element of instability."

This administration is responding to terrorism the same way they respond to young African-American males and Latinos -- because they see them as the same thing.

My Brother's Keeper is not a long-term solution. It's a short cut for a really brief time.

That's because what forces people into downward spirals -- crime, terrorism, whatever -- is often best combated by improving the lot of women.

Women's rights are human rights.

And if you want to help the young, you have to help the mothers.

So make real proposals that help the mothers. Government subsidized child care would do so much right now for so many working families who have children in day care or in after-school care.

Guess what else government subsidies there would do?

Allow more families to put their children into such programs.

And?

That would create more jobs.

And more job opportunities for all but, yes, for young males in the two groups that are identified as at-risk.

That's only one example.

Let's move to terrorism.

How is giving young men jobs going to eliminate terrorism?

Yes, there are people -- men and women -- who are paid to commit acts of terrorism.

But money isn't usually the motive.

The motive is usually the lack of fairness they observe, the lack of caring they observe.

And the motive is often about how that impacted their family.

How they lost a loved one.

If a focus is going to be made on jobs, let's look at Iraq where the White House insists that terrorism is at large levels.

Iraq is, due to the illegal war, The Land of Widows and Orphans.

You want to cut down on terrorism?

Provide jobs for the widow with three kids so that they're not growing up in need, so they're not begging on the street or forced to steal so their family can survive.

The State Department is supposed to have long range planning so it's very disturbing that their answer is no real answer.

It'll briefly create jobs for a small group of the population.

It'll do nothing to change women's lives and it'll do damn little to help Iraqi families in need.

Being "in need" in Iraq is being at risk -- at risk in every way including being targeted with violence.

The State Department's plan does nothing to address the roots of terrorism and it won't change anything in the long run.

As noted in an Iraq snapshot last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry used International Women's Day to pontificate about how important equality was. His remarks included:

John Kerry: Everywhere I travel, in every meeting, I can see firsthand the
promise of a world where women are empowered as equal partners in peace
and prosperity. But here’s what’s most important: all of the fights and
all of the progress we’ve seen in recent years haven’t come easily or
without struggle. And we still have work to do.Our work is not done when one out of every three women is subjected to some form of violence in her lifetime.We cannot rest knowing that girls younger than 15 are forced to marry
and that they are five times more likely to die in childbirth than
women in their twenties.

There's been some effort to remove the bill from Nouri. No, he did not propose it to his Cabinet. He did, however, embrace it, vote for it and he forwarded it to the Parliament. That makes it his bill.

SAID ARIKAT: Are you aware of a law that allows parent – fathers or guardians to marry off their 9-year-old girls?

MS. HARF: Yes.

SAID ARIKAT: And what is your comment on that?

MS. HARF: This
is a draft law. We understand that this draft law, which I think
several high-level Iraqi political and religious leaders have publicly
condemned and claim violates the rights of Iraqi women – has been sent
to the council of representatives for consideration. We absolutely
share the strong concerns of the UN mission in Iraq, which has noted
that this law risks constitutionally protected rights for women. The
draft law I think is pending before the parliament right now. It would
require three readings before a vote could take place, so we’ll
obviously be watching the debate closely and welcome a parliamentary
process that ensures the rights of all Iraqis, including women, are
fully protected in line with its constitution.

And I would also note
that some women’s groups, some human rights NGOs, have also condemned
the draft law as a significant step backwards for women’s rights in
Iraq.

Had she not been asked, she wouldn't have said a word. In fact, the press briefing was almost over when the question was asked.

John Kerry, for public approval and the cameras, offers generic crap and pretends to care about women.

But he had nothing to say about this issue despite the fact that the State Department is over the US mission in Iraq.

US House Rep William Keating: Thank you for being here. I know that
both of us, although we're here, part of us are still back home in
Massachusetts this morning. Getting to the theme of this morning's
hearing, your theme of small smart investments is right on point, I
couldn't agree with it more. One of those areas that the administration
and you have been involved with personally and Secretary [Hillary]
Clinton had been involved with was really dealing with issues like the
National Action Plan for Woman Peace and Security in the World. And I
think that we can't approach the broader issues of poverty and the rule
of law and education and health care around the world without dealing
with these issues, they're core to dealing with any advancement in that
area. And, furthermore, I think they're the smartest way to make some of
these investments for our dollar and to be effective. So I'd like you
to, just two things, if you could, comment on. One is generally comment
on your ability to deal with these gender equality advancement issues
with women around the world and, number two, particularly, gender-based
violence. You know it, in your capacity, you knew it when you were a
prosecutor, as I did. They know no borders or bounds when you're
dealing with violence based on gender-based violence. And
internationally, the violence that so many women experience take many
different forms -- from rape to early forced marriage to harmful
traditional practices that occur such as genital mutilation, 'honor'
killings, acid violence, sexual violence and contact -- and I could go
on and on and on. But can you comment on the Department's first-time
ever strategy to prevent gender-based violence globally? Those are the
two things I'd like you to comment on, Mr. Secretary. Secretary John Kerry: Well, thank you, Congressman. It's good to
see you and thanks for our shared feelings about what's happened up in
Boston. Secretary Clinton did a great job of putting this issue squarely
on everybody's agenda and I'm determined to make certain that we live
up to that standard -- if not exceed it. And we're in -- I think we're
in a good start to do that in terms of trafficking issues and other
things. But in-in London last week at the G8 Ministers meeting, Foreign
Minister [William] Hague of Great Britain made the centerpiece of our
meeting sexual violence as a tool of war. And we had a meeting, we had
outside representatives come in who helped to raise the profile of that
and, in my judgment, it was a very valuable moment for people to realize
that this is going to be held accountable as a War Crime. And we're
going to keep this gender-based violence front and center as we go
forward. I would also say to everybody, when I was in Afghanistan a
couple of weeks ago, when Anne Smedinghoff was my control officer, she
helped put together a remarkable meeting of ten entrepreneurs, ten women
in Afghanistan who are struggling against all of the resistance
culturally and historically in that country to stand up and start
businesses and-and help girls go to schools, help women be able to be
entrepreneurs. A remarkable process. And the courage that they
exhibited deserves everybody's support. It would certainly get ours in
the State Dept. And we're going to continue this in many different ways
over the next years in the State Dept -- you'll see us continue it.

US House Rep William Keating: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. In terms of
accountability, could that also include standards that might be tied to
aid to some extent?Secretary John Kerry: You know, Congressman, there are some places
that lend themselves to that kind of conditionality and there are others
that just don't. And I don't think there's a blanket cover all of
explaining a set of standards that's going to apply everywhere. In some
countries, the standards could actually be counter-productive and you
don't get done what you're trying to do. It really depends on what is
the package, what's the nature of the program, and I think you have to
be pretty customized in that approach.

Kerry does pretend to care about women's issues unless he's expected to do anything more than offer empty words.

He's not willing to tie it to aid, you understand, because it just doesn't rank as an important issue.

Not for him.

Not for the White House.

Not for the Democratic Party.

This crowd grew up using women as pawns -- it's why the Kennedy brothers were so beloved.

The only way a woman can achieve in this party is to be a work horse (Senator Patty Murray, for example) or to be a queen bee (Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is but one example).

There is a very real war on women in the US.

And, judging by Chris Matthews' meltdown on Morning Joe (MSNBC) near the end of last week (he insisted it was time for the Democratic Party to start scaring voters so they could win in the November elections), there's a good chance the DNC portrayed War On Women will be trotted out.

In that example, the Republican Party is intolerant, hateful and a danger to all women while the Democratic Party is the manly guardian that will save us.

We're not seeing a big difference between the two when it comes to women.

The Democrats sure do love to pose like they care about women.

But in the last five weeks alone, what did we see?

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand proposed a bill that would have helped women (and what other countries -- like England -- already do) and Democrats in the Senate as well as the White House worked to kill it.

Thursday, The New York Times report made clear that the administration was not using SVCs as they told Congress they would.

And yet that still is not a headline.

We are the first to point it out -- and that is not said in bragging, that is said in screaming frustration.

We saw Barack tell the nation about My Brother's Keeper -- a short term band-aid to an issue which, in fact, the White House views as necessary in the same way it's necessary to create jobs for young men in Iraq to prevent them from becoming terrorists.

When you put just that together -- there is, sadly, so much more that could be added to the list -- and think about, really think about it, it becomes clear that the paternalistic Democratic Party's not helping women. At best, they're harming women a little less than the Republican Party.

Reader Robin e-mailed to suggest we put the snack crackers through The TESR Test Kitchen.

Most people -- including us -- have sampled the cheese crackers known as Goldfish.

They're tasty and have a snap.

So if Goldfish can do that, what can Whales do?

We were expecting a bolder taste, a bigger taste, with Whales.

It's not there.

Even the size is basically the same.

That's the bad.

The good is they taste as good as Goldfish.

That's actually really good news because while you might pay three dollars for a box of Goldfish, you can get a 7 ounce box of Whales for a dollar and a half -- in fact, you can get them for a dollar even at some grocery stores.

Same taste, less price.

You also get a little education with each box.

On the side, various facts are printed. Here's one:

Is a whale a fish or mammal?Whales are mammals who live in the water, breathe air into their lungs, are warm-blooded, feed milk to their young and have hair.

Last week, we offered "Who would you send to a desert island?" and there was a reason for that but there were a number of e-mails with questions about it (thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com).

How did we choose the nominees?

We went with people in the news who would likely be in the news the next week as well.

Among leaders, that was Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel.

Among celebrities, Rebecca expressed the concern that she didn't want to see a pile-on on women. Mike offered that if a woman had done half of what Justin Bieber had in the last two months, she'd be ridiculed, have to go into rehab and be ridiculed for going into rehab.

Ava and C.I. did not participate in this section of the poll. They were editing "TV: A week of putrid and puerile." Ty pointed out that in their piece they took 'feminist' Lena Dunham to task for sending up the first successful hour long show starring an African-American woman when a better target would have been the all White and male-dominated NCIS. We agreed and put Mark Harmon on the list for that reason (he is the saggy boobed star of NCIS).

I then streamed several videos on putting a poll in Blogger and managed to do so . . . but only on the side.

The videos instructions did not work. They were supposed to (a) allow me to create a poll on the side, (b) put the poll into a post and (c) make it disappear on the side.

Only (a) worked.

Ty and Jess tried to fix it with no luck.

I tried repeatedly with no luck.

Ava and C.I. took a crack at it and were able to get the poll into an entry but they said they had no idea how to make it disappear on the side.

Dona pointed out that the 'quick feature' poll had now consumed over 4 hours. She suggested that we leave it on the side for the life of the poll (7 days) and then delete it.

Would that also delete it in the post?

In case it did, Dona suggested we do a screen snap of the final results and put that in the post.

We may do a poll again. We may make it a regular feature.

Why did we do it this time?

I'd been exchanging e-mails with a blogger who felt we should have comments here.

I explained why we don't (it's been explained here many times -- shortest version, when we started, Democrats were comfortable attacking African-Americans in comments) and explained what we do instead.

We do roundtables, for instance, that are completely based on e-mails from readers.

We do a regular e-mail feature called "Mailbag." Ty often builds a "Ty's Corner" around e-mails. Ava and C.I. will rundown what they plan to write -- topics -- with Ty and me before they start writing so we can note if anything in their topic list has had an e-mail. If so, they'll work in that a reader or readers have e-mailed about _____.

We do many features that result from e-mails -- and we note that when we do it.

We've done articles that were nothing but a single reader's e-mail (quoted and credited).

I've asked Ava and C.I. to do a TV piece on an e-mail from an angry reader named Tammi. They may or may not add other themes to it. If they do, they will open with Tammi. If they don't, it will just be Tami.

Are we not as responsive as we could be to readers?

That's possible and that's why I wanted to do the poll, to see how it went over.

We had about sixty people vote. By contrast, we had over 25,000 e-mails last week about articles other than the poll. Our readers appear more comfortable with e-mails.

We had 1,299 e-mails on the poll.

Over 52% was negative.

A third of that was negative because the poll appeared on the side of our site and also in a post.

I've already explained why that was.

Another third felt it wasn't needed. Mirelle probably summed up this theme best, "The last thing the internet needs is another online poll."

The other third felt the poll was trivial and didn't care for it as a result.

To that third, yes, the poll was trivial. That was actually the point. I wanted a trivial poll. To send up the polls we see online.

8% of the e-mails offered suggestions for future polls. 40% either got the point of the trivial nature or enjoyed a trivial poll just for being trivial.

I was, honestly, thinking it might be a new year for Third.

I was honestly thinking all the people voting would be my argument for allowing Third to change their policy and allow comments.

I've tried that before.

The poll results don't make an argument for comments.

Despite that, Ava and C.I. offered that, if I wanted, I could open their big article (about The War On Women, not about TV) this edition to comments. They were fine with it and figured it would include a lot of sexist comments slamming women. They said we could turn that into an article in the next edition.

But in old Blogger or our old template, we could have done that -- allowed comments in one entry.

I spent an hour trying to figure out how to do it now with no success.

But I do appreciate Ava and C.I.'s offer.

And I did appreciate the e-mail exchange with the blogger.

As I explained at one point in that exchange, we've established who we are online and done so some time ago. Our readers are clearly comfortable with the approach.

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to
General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently
deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with
intelligence.

Where were you, Medea?

You're a useless piece of trash who turned her back on Iraq long ago and wouldn't be 'remembering' now if it weren't a trend topic due to the anniversary of the start of the illegal war.

Ready to stop whoring, Medea?

Then write about Iraq today.

Write about how the US government -- your Barack dreamboat -- keeps arming Nouri al-Maliki and how he is using those weapons to attack the people.

Or write about how the Iraqi people voted him out in 2010 but the White House ensured Nouri got a second term.

There are currently 20 women in the Senate. 16 are Democrats. Because Democrats have the majority of seats in the Senate (53), Democrats serve as chairs of the Senate's 16 standing committees. 5 women serve as Chairs. And if you knocked out the class of 1992, the women first elected in that genderquake election, you'd have only 2 women as Chairs.

There are currently 79 women serving in the House. 19 are Republicans. Republicans have the majority of seats in the House so their members are Committee Chairs. When you're in the minority of either house, the highest minority leader on a Committee is the Ranking Member. With 60 women eligible to be Ranking Member on a House Committee, how many are? 6.

And we're confused by many of the Ranking Members.

For example?

Since US House Rep Susan Davis was basically Chair Ike Skelton's right hand for so many years, why isn't she Ranking Member?

And if your answer is 'senority,' US House Rep Loretta Sanchez has been a member of Congress just as long as Ranking Member Adam Smith so, no, 'senority' doesn't cut it as an answer.

We're not really confused, this is how it works out when sexism is at play.

For those who might e-mail (thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com) that we clearly do not know that Nancy Pelosi is Minority Leader, we do know. She's our US House Rep -- at least in name. She doesn't represent the district because she's too busy playing national.

She also doesn't represent women. She's just an overly applauded Queen Bee who is so very fond of doing press conferences with two or more men but has always damn little to help women serving in the House.

Democrats in Congress don't lead on the advancement of women. They really don't even reflect the status quo. (Those who want to argue "Republicans are no better!" should look up the phone number for MSNBC and see if you can get booked on one of their programs. We're talking about Democrats here and doing so because we're on the left.)

(Washington, D.C.)—Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior
member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (SVAC), pressed U.S.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Under Secretary for
Health Robert Petzel on continuing issues at the Spokane VA Medical
Center, including understaffing and budget shortfalls, and critically
needed federal funding for the planned Walla Walla State Veterans Home.

“The Spokane medical center recently prepared a draft response to
questions from the network about their budget. They talk about the
significant challenges of declining budgets, numerous staffing
vacancies, and, leading the network in new veteran patients,”said Senator Murray. “I want to ask you what you and the network are going to do to get Spokane the resources that they do need?”

“I am concerned about the future of the Walla Walla State Veterans
Home, especially because the budget request proposes reducing funding
for state veterans homes grants. These veterans have been waiting a
long time for this facility, and we have more than a thousand veterans
who need care,” said Senator Murray. “So I want to ask
whether the system is correctly prioritizing state home projects – do we
have enough flexibility? And how are we going to ensure that we’ve got
the funds for state veterans homes like Walla Walla?”

Full text of the exchange below:

SPOKANE VA MEDICAL CENTER

Sen. Murray:

“Secretary Shinseki, several times we have discussed my concerns
about getting medical centers the resources they need to provide
top-quality care for our veterans.

“The Spokane Medical Center recently prepared a draft response to
questions from the network about their budget. They talk about the
significant challenges of declining budgets, of numerous staffing
vacancies, and, leading the network in new veteran patients.

“And they said, and I’ll quote it: ‘Overall, senior management is
very aware of the budget shortfall and is taking actions to limit the
deficit. However, most actions will significantly limit staffing levels
and access to care. These actions will have – and have had – a
significant negative impact on morale and will drive some
dissatisfaction amongst patients.’

“Dr. Petzel, I asked you about a similar budget problem at
Indianapolis at the hearing on the 2012 budget, and you told me there
was no evidence that any medical center would be unable to provide the
care we expect. Unless your view has changed, Spokane’s assessment
seems to disagree.

“I want to ask you what you and the network are going to do to get Spokane the resources that they do need?”

Asst. Sec. Petzel:

“Senator Murray, thank you. I am assuming that that’s some employee’s
assessment of the situation, it’s not the senior leadership’s
assessment of the situation.”

Sen Murray:

“It is the senior leadership’s assessment.”

Asst. Sec. Petzel:

“I am not aware of this. We do believe, and the budget was
distributed back in October, and at that time, there was a consensus of
the network directors and the facility directors that they had
sufficient funds.”

Sen. Murray:

“The questions were asked to them by the VISN, and they
responded back, so it was the senior leadership at Spokane VA Center,
saying very clearly they do not have the dollars to be able to do the
duties that they need.”

Asst. Sec. Petzel:

“I will have to go back and talk with both the network and with Spokane. This is information that is new to me.”

Sen. Murray:

“OK, well, their draft response also calls for a discussion about the mission of the medical center.

“It asks if they will remain a full service medical center, and
whether programs and services should be eliminated. That is deeply
concerning to me.

“Are there any plans to reduce services at the Spokane medical center?”

Sec. Shinseki:

“We have no plans to do so.”

Sen. Murray:

“I need you to follow up on that and let me know what’s happening
that they are facing such a budget shortfall, and it was very clear in
the documents that we’ve seen that they are facing an extreme budget
shortfall that is hampering their ability to care for the veterans in
that region.”

Asst. Sec. Petzel:

“We will follow up.”

WALLA WALLA STATE VETERANS HOME

Sen. Murray:

“I also wanted to ask both of you about the Walla Walla State
Veterans Home. As you know, I’m very concerned about that, especially
because the budget request proposes reducing funding for state veterans
homes grants.

“These veterans have been waiting a very long time for this facility, and we have more than a thousand veterans who need care.

“So I want to ask whether the system is correctly prioritizing state home projects – do we have enough flexibility?

“And how are we going to ensure that we’ve got the funds for state veterans homes like Walla Walla?”

Asst. Sec. Petzel:

“Senator Murray, you and I have discussed on numerous occasions the
Walla Walla State Veterans’ Home, and I share your angst about that
particular project.

“We are looking at whether there is a solution that will allow us to
use the 2014 money in order to accomplish that construction but we’re
not finished looking at what the alternatives are.

“Obviously after we’ve done that, and discussed it with the Secretary, we will get back to you.”

Sen. Murray:

“We need to know where that’s going, and overall, not just that one,
but all of them, how are we going to deal with these veterans homes with
declining budgets?

“I think that as members of Congress, we need to know what the need
is and then we need to figure out how to fund it rather than just being
told everything’s OK. I want to know specifically about Walla Walla,
what we’re going to do, but also the funding in general.”

Search This Blog

Third Estate Sunday Review

About Me

Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, "Ava" started out this site as five students enrolled in journalism in NY. Now? We're still students. We're in CA. Journalism? The majority scoffs at the notion.
From the start, at the very start, C.I. of The Common Ills has helped with the writing here. C.I.'s part of our core six/gang. (C.I. and Ava write the TV commentaries by themselves.) So that's the six of us. We also credit Dallas as our link locator, soundboard and much more. We try to remember to thank him each week (don't always remember to note it here) but we'll note him in this. So this is a site by the gang/core six: Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. (of The Common Ills).